Awards

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

On the surface of it they seem to have very little in common. The left claims to be progressive, embraces gay bars, abortions, feminism, worker's rights civil rights, multiculturalism and obscene slogans. The Islamists throw acid in women's faces, hang gays on every streetcorner and repress minorities and freedom of expression. This seeming contrast baffles many who demand to know how for example the left can champion Islamic regimes which mandate the death penalty for homosexuality. The answer is very simple. The people asking the question have mistaken the facade for the reality.

The left is socially progressive only in its revolutionary phase. The Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba and Communist China all had much the same view of gay people-- that Iran does today. While gay writers in America campaigned for the USSR or Cuba, both those regimes imprisoned gay writers. Homosexuality was a criminal offense in the USSR until its actual fall. None of this bothered liberals in the West, who were happy to trek to Moscow, meet with Soviet leaders and blame the US for the Cold War. And then come home and talk about how intolerant the United States is.

The USSR was happy to discuss the civil rights of African-Americans in the US. Liberals however did not care that most of the African-Americans who came to Russia early after the revolution wound up in Gulags or dead. This has been documented in books such as Black on Red: My 44 Years Inside the Soviet Union by Robert Robinson, an African-American engineer who came to find a job but was unable to leave for over four decades, while remaining constantly in fear for his life in a racist society.

Jorge Luis García Pérez in Cuba, a pro-democracy activist who was only recently released from prison, said: "The authorities in my country have never tolerated that a black person oppose the regime." Carlos Moore has said; "There is an unstated threat. Blacks in Cuba know that whenever you raise race in Cuba, you go to jail. Therefore the struggle in Cuba is different. There cannot be a civil rights movement. You will have instantly 10,000 black people dead." Do you think that any of the Hollywood liberals like Spielberg or Costner who fall over themselves praising Castro care? Why would they.

Shall we discuss worker's rights? In the West, Communists championed unions. In the USSR, striking workers were meant with machine gun fire. In 1962, workers in the city of Novocherkassk tried to go on strike to protest pay cuts. They were gunned down in the street in front of city hall by Soviet troops. This mind you was in the days of the relatively "moderate" Communist regime of Khrushchev. Independent unions were illegal there. Just as they are illegal in the USSR.

It's possible to write volumes on this topic, but let's just cut to the chase. An actual left wing dictatorship brutally represses everything they claim to fight for.

While in the West, experimental artists were cheering on the USSR, in the USSR, such art was considered degenerate, just as it was in Nazi Germany. And the same went for literature. The USSR did push a sham feminism and occasionally abortion rights, not because they believed in it, but because they needed to expand the workforce. On the other hand divorces were hard to come by, and women who obtained them risked being expelled from the Communist Party. All the elements of political equality and civil rights that the left claimed to be fighting for, were in fact completely absent from Communist regimes. And that never bothered the left at all.

The social progressivism of the left has never been anything but a fraud. A tool used to recruit bohemian activists to fight on their side, while purging them once the revolution was successful. The left tries to overturn the values of a target society as part of a comprehensive revolutionary assault. That doesn't mean that its actual values are different. Once the left gains absolute power, it seeks to create a static and unchanging system. The perfect Utopian society with immovable laws administered by an endless political bureaucracy. In the real world this translates into a repressive search for stability. Which means banning exactly the same things that the left had been fighting for. And the first thing to be banned is always the right to dissent. A right that the left insists on for itself when it is out of power, but does not permit to others when it is.

George Orwell expressed this closed circle at the end of Animal Farm by having the "new bosses" who were once pigs become indistinguishable from the farmers, the "old bosses". The pigs had not been interested in an animal run farm. What they all along wanted was to take over. To become the farmers. Championing the rights of all animals to be free was only a tool to accomplish their end goal. Absolute power.

This finally brings us back to Islam. There has never been any contradiction between the left making common cause with Islamist movements and regimes that murder gay people. Because if the Left in the West ever gained absolute power, they would murder them too. For that matter 90 percent of the idiots attending their anti-war rallies would end up in front of a firing squad. Does this sound far-fetched to you? Guess what, virtually every Communist regime did the same thing in its time.

Do you know what the worst possible way to survive a Communist takeover is? It's being a member of a right wing organization. Do you know what the second worst way is? Being a member of a left wing organization. Do you know what the third worst way is? Being a member of the Communist party before the takeover. Yes, the third worst thing to be when the Communists take over, is to be one of them. Because you'll only get to live long enough to help wipe out the members of right wing organizations and the members of left wing non-Communist groups, before your own turn comes.

This is not just the norm for Communists, it's a common pattern on the left. The French Revolution degenerated into horrifying massacres and endless executions in exactly that same way. First the radicals purge "enemies of the state", then they purge each other, then they themselves are purged to make way for a more stable system. The end result is a repressive state that has wiped out anyone who might want to change things. Which was the goal all along.

So the idea that the Left would have only moral objections to the Islamists is just plain naive. In fact the Left and the Islamists agree on the essential bullet points, including the part about using actual bullets and who they want to kill. As far as both Left Wing and Islamist leaders are concerned, 90 percent of their movements consist of nothing more than useful idiots good for nothing but cannon fodder. Don't believe me? When was the last time, a Hamas leader sent one of his sons to blow himself up? It never happened. And never will.

The Islamists and the Leftists have the same goal. Absolute power. Islam like Communism is a means to that end. This is what makes them so dangerous. Their goal is to create absolute tyrannies based on ideologies that promise a better world. The ideology is what brings them to power as useful idiots kill and die, thinking that they're fighting to create a Utopian society run according to the Koran (a book supposedly dictated by an illiterate merchant who used his claims of getting divine messages from angels to rule over an entire region) or Marxism (essays produced by a man who never worked for a living, but was supported by the profits from a textile factory) that will usher in a new era where everyone (except all the people they killed) are happy.

The Left is on the same page as the Islamists. Just as they were on the same page as the Nazis. Just as they're on the same page with every reactionary totalitarian regime in the world, except those that they think they can overthrow, or those that are allied with the Great Satan or the Imperialist Capitalist Powers.

The Left tells its followers that they're smarter and more moral than ordinary people. What it really means is that they're dumber and more willing to sacrifice for its goals. The Islamists tell their followers that they're braver and more religious than ordinary people. What they mean, is that their followers are suicidally stupid and easily led around the nose. The common denominator isn't very hard to see. The Left is the Islam of the West. And Islam is the Left of the Middle East. But labels like that are virtually meaningless. Both are just totalitarian movements using gullible idiots following an ideology worked out by vicious greedy men to seize power. That is all there is to it in the end. The rest is just technique.

The Left has no problem allying with Islam. Nor does Islam have a problem allying with the Left. That is because they both agree on their enemies and their objectives. They have more of a problem allying with people who actually want to be free, then they do with slaves and their slavemasters. Of course once in power, one would have to absorb or destroy the other. Just as Communism and Nazism united to consume Eastern Europe, with the inevitable consequence that once the job was done, one would have to destroy the other. Hitler successfully fooled Stalin and nearly destroyed the USSR with a first strike. Islam will likely do the same thing to the Left, just as it did in Iran.

The Red-Green Alliance works because both are variations on a theme. The theme is totalitarian rule. It is not the Left that threatens Islam, nor Islam that threatens the Left-- but free societies and individual freedoms. When such societies prove successful, then they particularly infuriate those who insist that they must be replaced with their totalitarian rule. These twin impulses, fear of a loss of control over their own societies, and a lust for power, is what energizes the Jihad of Islam and the Revolutions of the Left. Both want control, rather than freedom. And offer promises of Utopian tyrannies in exchange for freedom.

Destroying Europe, America, Israel, Australia, Canada, etc is about power. Absolute power. And it is about putting out whatever light still shines in the West, for fear that it will spread. The light of freedom and civilization stands in the way of tyranny. And tyranny is the endgame of both the Left and Islam. Two sides of the same coin. Janus, with one head looking back to the impossible past of Mohammed, and with one head looking forward to the even more impossible future of Communism. Both forcibly ignoring the present in which people can still be happy and free.

I recently lost my job due thanks to a Phd candidate I was unfortunately aligned to work with.

He brought up the subjects of Muslims and global warming on the same day. (That should have been the tip off!) He laughed at me and thought me foolish because I don't believe AGW to be real. I gave him proof that it wasn't by showing him a number of sights that contend against it, including a UN site.

He asked me whether or not I thought all Muslims are evil. I told him not the individuals (although I wouldn't trust any), but the religion is. He spoke of Iranians he knew that loved agbminijad(however it's spelled), I showed him Persian sites that differed.

In the end I was just another ignorant, conservative, christian (or there no catholics, jews, hindus, blacks, asians involved in teaparties?) red neck, teapartier, blah blah blah.

I asked why and where did it state that I have to be tolerant of everyone else's view/lifestyle/whatever, but no one had to show tolerance to me?

Wonderful article as usual. One who has not lived in a communist country but born in the freedom of US can't imagine what it means. Same with Israelis born and bred there who have not experienced the idea of antisemitism except from news, but it doesn't touch. Then they go to Europe, or even Turkey and everyone was sooo nice to them, no, they haven't seen any antisemitism. We talk about real hatred directed towards you as a person, no logic involved. I suppose same with Jews who lived in Muslim countries, they know what it means. The problem today is also the lack of knowledge, people don't read except for trivia, they know no history, miss the whole picture because they relay on their lack of experience.

On the face of it, the simple minded would think it absurd to compare Leftists with Jihads. The fact is, at the core they are driven by the same ambitions superficially masked by great cultural differences. It is the obsession for absolute power---the totalitarian temptation. Eric Hoffer makes the case for this phenomenon in True Believer.

Once Leftists have absolute power, they will be forced to turn on the useful idiots who embraced their arrival as they become disillusioned and realize the vision they believed in was a lie. And because it is America this time, the consequences will be greater. Not only will the US suffer for embracing transition to socialism, but the rest of the world now faces instability, and not just economically. This is how world wars are conceived in the womb.

Modern civilization will not escape what has taken place without grave consequence.

They are two sides of a coin indeed. One side wears the mask of compassionate humanitarian, goodly steward of the earth, lovers of all living things, rescuer of the downtrodden. The other side has a sword, a flame and a book fueling them both that threatens to burn and kill anything that gets in its way. Underneath they are the same. They want to help us cross to the other side of the street and they will wrestle us to the ground, break our arm and grind our faces into the gutter if we resist their generous offer of help.

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests.

In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824.

Excellent article Mr Greenfield. Keep up the good work. I enjoyed the responses from the posters. Very informative. I believe the Left and Islam are definitely two sides of the same coin. No question. The question for me is will our kind unite in time and take the action required to save our civilisation and prevail, or are we leaving it too late?

I very much appreciate your article, and would also connect this thinking to Israel.

Stalin thought that Israel, as the promised state became, was "in the bag to become one of his communist bloc". He had good reason to think this.

Even 62 years later there is reason for islaam, hamas and the ""palestinian"authority" to be grateful for the very influential Left/ Liberal Israeli prominance in Israel, which paves the way for so much ignorance amongst the Jewish population, about their and islaam's true intentions.

As a new immigrant to Israel from the UK I am only too aware of this "mix", and how what appear opposites or divergents often are in close colaboration.

The Israeli Left, for all their "intellectual abillities" can't see the writing on the wall intended by islaam includes them too!!.

I think at this time the leftwing liberals are more dangerous than islam in the respect that what the libs do is always supposedly humane and kind and they hide every pupose.But we all know what islam stands for.Put them together and they are deadly.

As a followup to this discussion, have any of you seen that MSNBC ditto heads calling for a military draft?

http://tinyurl.com/27h34hq

And as an aside - it pays to post on this blog. :) After twenty months of unemployment, my company called yesterday to offer me a contract. Six months to possible fulltime. At least they're getting work again.

The crew has not qualms scorching some young kid with a hot light simply because he is pro-abortion and their not. The police arrest one of the group being intimidated by the crew. I imagine that at any other time this would be child abuse by the crew but because the victims are pro-abortion, it's a free pass. White liberals wouldn't due this to black, hispanic, etc., pro-lifers but white pro-lifers are open game. Same victimization is fine by the police apparently.

My initial reaction is that this views the left as a stoic block of homogenous ideology, which it seldom can truly be said to be. I think the main problem is the view of leftist ideology as lock-step soviet/near-ww2-era style communism, which completely overlooks environmental and social right causes, which I would say are two of the most uniting ideas behind leftism in the states, if not globally. I agree in general with the idea that leaders of movements regardless of ideology can and often do become caught up in politicking and lose sight of their original, widely supported, agendas when/if they gain power. However, that is hardly an explanation of Israel/Palestine/the left. I think that this article falls very very flat and comes off more as a diatribe against a straw man "left" that was conceived on outdated observations and is then described in a way that is logically inconsistent (e.g. fascism and communism are very very different ideologies -- I cede the point that both have been implemented in totalitarian ways).

I think a much more accurate analysis would look at the consistent and broad failures of dominant power structures and would be able to identify much more of the alignment with peoples' feelings of disenfranchisement and disenchantment with the modus operandi of said structures before ever having to talk about USSR/WW2 Germany in any context other than its consistency with other world powers at any time in oppressing its own people and those around it in the interests of its own ruling elite.

I get that many people get caught up in buzzwords and dont carefully examine the underlying ideologies about causes they support, but this article totally misses the point that most people dont view the conflict from the perspective of wanting power and trying to get it through issues like this one, but instead they talk about militarism, the state, and other institutional power structures that they see as oppressive in their own context and apply the paradigm to the conflict in the ME.

nothing is homogeneous if you look at it in enough detail, but if you don't simplify and instead constantly enumerate subdivisions, exceptions and differences-- you'll never be able to discuss the bigger picture at all

social rights causes were hardly alien to Communism, and environmentalism was a useful tool for destroying American industry and making products more expensive, which helped force two-income families

"...environmentalism was a useful tool for destroying American industry and making products more expensive, which helped force two-income families"-I contend that internationalization of trade and production, along with the outsourcing of jobs, and the corporate welfare state of the business-controlled US government had FAR more to do with the factors that have led to the two income household -- however, the fact of a two income household is unlikely as far as being a necessity borne from environmental regulation. More likely, it is related with a doubling of the workforce due to women joining the workforce during the world wars. Either way, my point about the ties between the left and islam from the perspective of common cause in power seeking I feel still withstands your counterpoints. Also, re: commonalities between islam and the left as suggested by your post, I don't believe you have made a persuasive argument for disproving my contention that the perspective you take on the left extends to the present, but rather, seems stuck in the mid-20th century.

"nothing is homogeneous if you look at it in enough detail, but if you don't simplify and instead constantly enumerate subdivisions, exceptions and differences-- you'll never be able to discuss the bigger picture at all"-True enough. However, I still have a difficult time identifying a movement of/by/from the left that seeks to engage in social action for the primary objective of absolute power or control, with the exception of entrenched politicians; I think we can both agree that left or right, the people who have held power the longest have interests that are very different from those they are supposed to represent under any doctrine or law."social rights causes were hardly alien to Communism" -Perhaps, but I believe that in your post you dismissed these as a "sham". Which is it? Looking at labor issues from the perspective of major union groups or social justice from the perspective of groups like the ACLU, its difficult for me to draw any meaningful comparison between the social rights movements of the Soviet state and the groups that are most visible on what could be considered the traditional left today.

It might even be convincing if all the sins you accuse the Left of were not also committed by the Right. Perhaps one day you will come to see that the basic problem is that few people of any ideology can be trusted with power. As it stands now, it's a great example of the pot calling the kettle black.

I just feel that politicians walk around talking about doing things but nothing happens. Whether you are right wing or left wing in terms of the party you work for. What really changes when someone new comes to power?